Malaysia has been regarded as a ‘relatively’ strong state with high state autonomy and state capacity, while the Philippines as a weak state with low state autonomy and state capacity. Attempting to delineate the historical configurations of social classes and nations that brought about the differences in state strength in the two countries, this study carries with it the following hypotheses: (a) that the moderate levels of diversity of the hegemonic class and antagonism between the subgroups within it (along the national fault line, in our cases) will contribute to the state autonomy; (b) that the institutionalized political actions of other social forces such as lower and middle class forces, national and ethnic groups, and civil society and social movement forces, if taken within the legal and formalized political framework, will check the hegemony of the dominant class and thus contribute to the state strength; (c) that the transformative popular movements such as radical class movements and national movements(eg. Muslim secessionist movement in the southern Philippines), if waged in an extreme manner and beyond the institutional framework, will be a serious threat to the state apparatus and will have a negative effect on the state autonomy and state strength; and (d) that the relationship between the state and upper classes(esp. the ruling oligarchy) and the nature and limitations of the political system(those of the electoral and party politics) are among the major determinants of the state capacity.